Subscribe

November 30, 2007

Hillary Clinton Speaks at Rick Warren's AIDS Conference

This bothers me for a number of reasons (you can watch video of the event here). And no, it's not because I'm a Hillary-hating fundie who froths at the mouth everytime I hear or see her. And no, I'm not against a church hosting such a conference. Indeed, I applaud Warren's efforts on this issue.

Here are the questions bothering me:

(1) I'm sure Pastor Warren has a heart of gold so I've got no questions whatsoever about his motives. But is Warren savvy enough not to be used as a political pawn? While I may not question Warren's motives, I extend no such courtesy to Clinton and for good reason. Is Hillary really interested in partnering with evangelical churches across America to address our social ills? If so, this would be evident in her actions prior to this conference. If such action is almost entirely absent from her past public record, is it more reasonable to think that an appearance at Warren's conference is nothing more than an attempt to woo evangelical voters? Now, I'm not opposed in principle to candidates making an appeal to constituents. I just think we need to wisely assess such appeals. And of course I'm not opposed to Christians being active, aggresively active, in the public square. Christians belong in politics. But such involvement also requires prudence so that one's efforts aren't merely used by politicians or a political party.

(2) Has the congregation at Saddleback been equipped to think biblically about the role of government? Do they understand the Church's role corporately, if there is one, and the role of each individual believer in politics? If not, aren't there serious liabilities for a pastor and his flock, to bring in a major presidential candidate to such a conference, especially given the timing? Church members who spoke to the media after Clinton's appearance seem to indicate so. One church member who, according to this article, is "a Republican considering voting for Clinton," said this: “She understands the magnitude of the problem and what it will take to address it. I was very impressed by her.” Another member was so impressed she had this to say of Clinton: "She is my new hero." Should Hillary be elevated to hero status merely because of her stance on this single issue of AIDS? Does the AIDS issue carry such magnitude that is trumps all other issues? Unfortunately, such comments seem to reveal an inability to take into accout all of the views an individual holds on various issues.

(3) Is AIDS a weighty enough issue that the church should focus on it to the exclusion of other important issues, such as abortion? And no, no, no -- I'm not saying that's what Warren or Saddleback do. What I'm pointing out is the recent trend amongst Evangelicals in general to focus on social issues like poverty and AIDS, while turning their backs on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. Indeed, in some Evangelical circles they've moved beyond such divisive issues altogether. Now, I hope Saddleback has an active and thriving abortion ministry but I just don't know. I would love to see Warren put just as much effort into a national conference on abortion as well. With his public profile and influence, he could have a tremendous impact. And abortion seems to be the weightier issue by far. Consider the amount of lives lost to AIDS and to abortion. According to the Center for Disease Control about 17,000 AIDS-related deaths in the United States in 2005. Certainly 17,000 dead is very tragic. And I know Warren's plans extend beyond the U.S. to Africa. But take the U.S. abortion numbers and compare: by conservative estimates you've got more than one million abortions each year in the U.S. And you have almost 50 million abortions since 1973.

17,000 lives lost versus more than 1 million lives lost annually. You tell me which issue seems to be more weighty.

To be fair to Pastor Warren, he talks about the issue a bit more HERE and offers a quick response to his critics, albeit a very inadequate response. And again, I think that Warren's effort to address AIDS is noble. Indeed, I'm saddened to see things like this from the article: "According to a 2005 poll by the Christian research group Barna only 17 percent of evangelical Christians surveyed said they would be willing to help AIDS orphans." I want to see Christians out front on a host of social issues, including AIDS. However, I'm afraid there's a subtle movement away from some of the most important social issues the church needs to be addressing and an embrace of more popular and less divisive issues. I truly hope this kind of conference is not a part of that movement.

Comments

To question Hillary`s motives is a wise and prudent thing to do, so why not question Rick Warren`s motives as well? I believe he has given reasons to question his motives from many past incidences.
Naive? Hardly.
When would you consider it wise to question or to withold questioning another`s motives?

Let's see: Hillary Clinton is against the spread of AIDS. (God bless her). She also wants the federal government to fund a Woodstock Museum. But Woodstock is where people exercised their unbridled liberty to listen to live music, never shower, do drugs, and exchange bodily fluids. So, Hillary wants to stop the spread of AIDS while celebrating the orgies that spread AIDS. This is the thinking of the enlightened.

The Woodstock "Museum" is actually a business venture with a performing arts complex and regular presentations. The area is, I believe, Republican and the center enjoys community support.

Dr. Beckwith's comment is a good summary of what is wrong with our politics: Too much money and too much irrelevant comment.

The earmark, supported by both of the state's Senators, is pure pork and deserved to be defeated. Shame on both of them. Public financing of campaigns, which we already have in several states, really needs to happen.

The original concert at Woodstock happened in 1969 which was a full decade before the AIDS problem. By 1980 most of the folks who were partying at Woodstock were settled in suburbia with careers and families.
The counter-culture was long dead and we had disco and Reagan.

Woodstock and hippies had nothing to do with the AIDS crisis in Africa and Asia. Either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama is likely to be the next President of the United States. Evangelicals seem to be growing up politically and Rick Warren recognizes that.

I would not expect that most people in the Saddleback congregation would make any kind of final decision on Clinton's qualifications for President by one appearence discussing one issue.

To the extent that this situation is implied in the post and the links I can understand Brett's unease. I don't however consider this as an indication that evangelicals are turning left (or as Alan puts it, growing up politically).

As far as I could count, only one or two people were quoted as seriously considering Clinton for President and I didn't see any quotes from a member of the congregation that thought Clintons position on AIDS might be great but not sufficient to qualify her for President. I suspect there were a few there who might have held that view.

Warren says:
"But when millions are dying each year we are interested in lives, not labels," Warren said in a statement. "We want everyone to become concerned about the AIDS pandemic."

This is fine but of course this was not just about AIDS. It was also a political event that Clinton will use to her advantage. It seems Warren avoided addressing the political question by accusing Christian critics of lacking grace. To me this was not a particularly "graceful" response on his part.

Still, I have no serious problem with Clinton being invited to share her views. It might have been better if she was just asked to provide video when it was apparent that no other candidate would attend.

If I understand Alan, he thinks that this event is some kind of indication that Warren is trying to get into a position of favor with Clinton because he expects her to be elected. Or perhaps that social justice issues are taking a greater role in evangelicalism and therefore Clinton is a more desirable candidate.

I actually don't see this demonstrated by the event or by the links provided.

Hi William, I guess my point is that it is unhealthy for a large bloc of voters to base their decisions on one or two issues. Focusing on abortion has led millions of folks to vote against their economic interests as well as the getting the added bonus of an unnecessary war and the erosion of constitutional rights. That many of them are indifferent or in denial on this is besides the point.

If they broadened their concerns to a wider range of issues, they might actually wind up doing well by doing some real good.

Alan said: "Focusing on abortion has led millions of folks to vote against their economic interests as well as the getting the added bonus of an unnecessary war and the erosion of constitutional rights."

You are entitled to assert your opinion. I would suggest that some issues are more worthy of priority than others, the life issues being highly important, at least to many Christians.

The way the issues have been presented by the media in this situation seem to indicate that the Saddleback congregation, used as representative of evangelicals, may be deemphasizing the life issues to give priority to AIDS programs. This is viewed as moving left.

If this scenario were true I get the idea you would be happy since it supposedly indicates a wider developing concern.

I actually don't think this account is accurate to what is happening at Saddleback. I may be wrong.

Christian concern and involvement is quite wide and has been widening, much to the dismay of some, but as with most any other population, there is disagreement on priorities.

I would resist any move to narrow the concern of Christians for the suffering in this world.

Hi William, now I'm confused and I don't think this has anything to do with utilitarianism.

Regardless of what ones goals are, it would seem to me that a strategy that discredited me and my goals and led to more harm than good should send me back to the drawing board. One doesn't have to become an agnostic and a liberal; one justs needs to recognize that Christianity and conservatism should be as troubled by incompetence and criminality as your average agnostic liberal is.